Re: Statics and caches and mocks oh my!

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM, David Burstin <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Another is to create an interface and have the production code use a
> concrete implementation that internally calls the static methods.In testing
> I can inject mocks. Again, this seems messy to me.
>
>
Not having seen the code my gut tells me that this is probably what I would
do. Just create a wrapper API that lets you use the cache in a more OO way
and then write a concrete implementation that delegates to the statics. You
can mock that interface in your tests.


> I personally don't like the use of static objects, but I don't know what a
> better alternative is that would provide long-lived caching and easy
> accessibility from anywhere in the code. Everyone else on the team thinks
> that they are a great solution.
>
>
I would consider the statics a smell. Creating the wrapper API gives you a
seam to test from, and then once you have coverage you can think about
refactoring the statics out without changing the API.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/